If we want to succeed in our coup, we have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another plan. You didn’t tell me they were going to be so blinkered and angry and so hateful of others. Well, you did try to tell me, but my feeble, effeminate mind refused to take it in. I'm such a silly moo moo. Can you tell me what to do, Dan? Can you come up with a better plan? I won't feel safe otherwise. We need to be better armed before we leave our abode again and descend back into hell.....

Pam: Rationality comes with a inherent blind spot: its function is to divide.

Diebert: Are you suggesting the view would clear up just because one stopped making distinctions?

There is no view when one is not making distinctions (not thinking). Obviously one cannot function without distinctions, a point-of-view. I was merely pointing out that when making distinctions, one can make them with the realization that:

Pam: Truth 101: existence is not divided.

So that when one makes distinctions and they find themselves taking them too seriously, they can stop. Laughter is a good way to stop attachment.

Diebert: Truth does not help you to see the difference between a bread and a stone.

No, but it can help you stop obsessing about bread and stones (or sex, or a perceived psychological hurt, or a lost love, etc.)

Diebert: And when your kids asked you for food, how did you know what to give?

Obviously you took me way too seriously. Yep, I knew exactly where to find the Kraft Dinner.

Pam: Could the realization of this ultimate paradox not result in the liberating (sane) conclusion that, in truth, the ultimate logical conclusion is that logic is illogical?

Diebert: To have any conclusions at all, let alone to distinguish between sane ones and insane ones, would already be a highly logical act of applied reason. Bottom line is that you cannot escape it unless you walk you into the pasture, start crawling and keep on munching that grass. My apologies for the graphic attempt at humour!

I agree, one must already be logical to argue that logic is existentially illogical. I also agree that using logic is unavoidable, but again, my point is that when one understands that its function is to divide the undivided, one can stop distinction-clinging in its tracks.

Pam: Perhaps when viewed from the perspective of a foundation/self value, laughter is the best medicine after all. Probably not for the existence this board though.

Diebert: Realizing the insane predicament of being alive, as human being, having all these opinions and feelings about things while his own self-existence is like this freaky delusion and the greatest thing he could ever imagine would be still just a blip on a blip, does lead to interesting perspectives. But also that perspective I'd still call opinion. It's also a perspective which might give something but also takes things away. A lot like laughter.

Not disagreeing that the whole ‘messy-extraordinary-heap-of-self’ is opinion (relativism), the cause of suffering when it is believed to be truth. Lots of that going around, an all-too-easy trap for human being to fall into.

In the autumn, about the time for migration, it became aware of some tame geese. It became enamored by them, thought it a shame to fly away from them, and hoped to win them over so that they would decide to go along with it on the flight. To that end it became involved with them in every possible way. It tried to entice them to rise a little higher and then again a little higher in their flight, that they might, if possible, accompany it in the flight, saved from the wretched, mediocre life of waddling around on the earth as respectable, tame geese.

At first, the tame geese thought it very entertaining and liked the wild goose. But soon they became very tired of it, drove it away with sharp words, censured it as a visionary fool devoid of experience and wisdom. Alas, unfortunately the wild goose had become so involved with the tame geese that they had gradually gained power over it, their opinion meant something to it – and gradually the wild goose became a tame goose.

Dan Rowden wrote:
Yeah, it's a bit of work. I was compiling my own list but got lazy. But I feel if you want to express a meaningful opinion on Trump and this regime you ought be over this stuff. Otherwise, what is it you're speaking to?

Just browsing quickly, I seem to be familiar with most of the items in this list of links and articles. It was easier digesting everything piecemeal, as it came out over the past couple of years.

The Obama regime began rounding up illegal immigrants with an actual criminal record (roughly 2 million over 8 years). Obama deported a record number of illegal Mexicans such that the net flow of Mexicans into the US is currently zero. But it was reasonable, targeted and not indiscriminate. It's analogous to the Muslim countries that Obama tagged for stronger vetting. That's what it was - stronger vetting. Trump turned it into a side show of indiscriminate police state madness that was, and continues to be, directed at US citizens with Islamic or Hispanic names. Muhammed Ali's son has been twice detained by these fuckwits purely because of his name. Police State? The US is already 30% there and has been since 9/11.

There are many concerning issues, and I think it is a reasonable proposition to suggest the US is heading in the wrong direction (headed into a police state). 911 does seem to be the major turning point. I believe that the main qualification for a police state is a state in which the police become militarized and issue final verdicts concerning the people of the communities in which they operate. I don't think we've gotten this far yet, but it's reasonably possible that we are headed in this direction.

pursue appropriate legislation, consistent with the Constitution's regime of limited and enumerated Federal powers, that will define new Federal crimes, and increase penalties for existing Federal crimes, in order to prevent violence against Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Exactly what new federal crimes will be defined? This doesn't seem to be the job of the executive branch. However I believe this is a manifestation of what I spoke earlier. We are in a state of Imperial Presidency. We have been for the last 50+ years. This isn't anything new, and this certainly isn't Trump's doing. He is openly exploiting the system in line with all presidents before him for the last several decades. Democrats and Republicans push for more executive power whenever their candidate is in power. Vice-versa, Dems and Repubs push for limits on executive power when their guy isn't in office. This is how party politics works and is par for the course. The only difference is that Trump isn't putting up a politically correct facade to distract the electorate. Trump is overt, brazen, and doesn't take shit from anyone. In someone whom doesn't possess the kinds of principles of Trump, I would likely consider these qualities commendable. In fact it could be argued politics needs a guy like Trump to act as a mirror in which we (the electorate) can stop, look, and get a glimpse of the monster we've become.

The United States is in quite a predicament. Our military is based on the necessity of fighting two wars on either side of the globe at the same time if necessary, and we spend an insane amount of money in order to maintain this state of affairs. On the the other hand some would argue this expenditure is necessary because we are the military 30+ countries around the globe would call upon if conflict arises (including Australia). If we want to essentially keep policing the world like this then truthfully we aren't spending enough. This on top of the increasing costs of healthcare and college tuition, overcrowded prisons, the war on drugs, and so much other bureaucratic bloat that comes with such a large government, we run up the national debt to logarithmic heights with no end in sight. What are we supposed to do? It's a problem that has no easy answers. I don't have a clue how one would go about figuring a solution. I'm sure as hell Trump won't be able to figure this out. We use plumbers to fix pipes. We use sailors to sail ships. The government needs intelligent people who know how to fix issues, not politicians. I don't know how to get the right people into the right positions of power in order to solve our problems. Does anyone?

@Pam: Like grrl gamers, you want to impose your favoured rules and restrictions on our men's club through the only dialectical tactic women can understand - pointing out "double standards" in men i.e. making them feel guilty.

Believing that an understanding of our philosophical *vocabulary* is enough to nag us into domestication, you have decided to treat us like unruly children. This isn't spirituality; it's roleplay. We get involved in an aggressive debate about worldly matters, you come in saying "boys, boys, boys..." and then the audience roars into applause and laughter.

But let's examine your argument itself:

There is no view when one is not making distinctions (not thinking). Obviously one cannot function without distinctions, a point-of-view. I was merely pointing out that when making distinctions, one can make them with the realization that:

Pam: Truth 101: existence is not divided.

That realisation cannot exist, by definition. If it does, then it follows that all of existence is divided into two independently originated halves i.e. that realisation itself, and everything else to which it applies. Since the realisation realises the undivided nature of existence, it cannot have originated from ordinary finite things that are divided by definition. Likewise, since said ordinary finite things are not undivided, they cannot have originated from the realisation that they are undivided.

Aut Caesar aut nihil - those are the choices open to the man of spirit. If Caesar, then *all* distinctions - precisely as *distinctions* and not manifestations of some ephemeral "oneness" - remind us of God, because for God all things are possible. If nihil, then nothing whatsoever speaks of God, and the spirit withers unto death with the sickness called despair.

In the autumn, about the time for migration, it became aware of some tame geese. It became enamored by them, thought it a shame to fly away from them, and hoped to win them over so that they would decide to go along with it on the flight. To that end it became involved with them in every possible way. It tried to entice them to rise a little higher and then again a little higher in their flight, that they might, if possible, accompany it in the flight, saved from the wretched, mediocre life of waddling around on the earth as respectable, tame geese.

At first, the tame geese thought it very entertaining and liked the wild goose. But soon they became very tired of it, drove it away with sharp words, censured it as a visionary fool devoid of experience and wisdom. Alas, unfortunately the wild goose had become so involved with the tame geese that they had gradually gained power over it, their opinion meant something to it – and gradually the wild goose became a tame goose."
- From the Journals of Soren Kierkegaard

My daughter has a goose on her farm. Try to get within two feet of him, and a thrusting beak will greet your efforts. The mind is always conflicted (wild?) because of its function to divide, no one or thing is exempt from this conflict.

'Tame' is not a truth any more than 'wild' is a truth. Which makes Kierkegaard unenlightened in my books. Good thing you can't separate them as Kierkegaard's parable suggests you can. Anymore than one can separate the idea of Man from the idea of Woman or rationality from irrationality. One can try and in doing so, make a philosophy of this trying -- Kierkegaard's Truth in Subjectivity -- and suffering shall be his lot. If he accepts this lot, no problem. But those who do not, those who find ways to release suffering when it comes are no less conscious than is he.

jupiviv wrote:@Pam: Like grrl gamers, you want to impose your favoured rules and restrictions on our men's club through the only dialectical tactic women can understand - pointing out "double standards" in men i.e. making them feel guilty.

Believing that an understanding of our philosophical *vocabulary* is enough to nag us into domestication, you have decided to treat us like unruly children. This isn't spirituality; it's roleplay. We get involved in an aggressive debate about worldly matters, you come in saying "boys, boys, boys..." and then the audience roars into applause and laughter.

But let's examine your argument itself:

There is no view when one is not making distinctions (not thinking). Obviously one cannot function without distinctions, a point-of-view. I was merely pointing out that when making distinctions, one can make them with the realization that:

Pam: Truth 101: existence is not divided.

That realisation cannot exist, by definition. If it does, then it follows that all of existence is divided into two independently originated halves i.e. that realisation itself, and everything else to which it applies. Since the realisation realises the undivided nature of existence, it cannot have originated from ordinary finite things that are divided by definition. Likewise, since said ordinary finite things are not undivided, they cannot have originated from the realisation that they are undivided.

Aut Caesar aut nihil - those are the choices open to the man of spirit. If Caesar, then *all* distinctions - precisely as *distinctions* and not manifestations of some ephemeral "oneness" - remind us of God, because for God all things are possible. If nihil, then nothing whatsoever speaks of God, and the spirit withers unto death with the sickness called despair.

All things are possible, none of them are absolute. Knowing this takes one in two directions, one adopts the philosophy of truth in subjectivity (the relative must be believed to be the absolute), or one adopts the philosophy that because to make the relative absolute causes suffering, releasing this suffering is a valid and worthy philosophy of 'self.' If the truth in subjectivity guy wants to make a girl an absolute thing, or guilt an absolute thing, go for it. But I ain't a girl anymore than I'm a guy. At least I know it. :-)

Opinions (as truth) cannot be avoided, But the suffering one experiences because ofthe resulting attachment can be eased, almost to non-existence (very subtle) if one desires. And believe it or not, one does not have to fall into despair or unconsciousness to bring their consciousness to this 'point' of easement of suffering. But one won't know until one tries, will they?

Fear of release in the conventional world is often associated with 'manly' behaviour. Perhaps it's no different in the philosophical world.

They are absolute precisely because they are possible. Anything that can be logically conceived holds the key to one's very existence.

But the suffering one experiences because ofthe resulting attachment can be eased, almost to non-existence (very subtle) if one desires.

The desire to get rid of attachments is itself an attachment. Non-attachment can't be desired or attained, yet it must guide one's every action. Getting rid of suffering is the Epicurean's goal. The sage, on the other hand, wants to be rid of nothing whatsoever.

Fear of release in the conventional world is often associated with 'manly' behaviour. Perhaps it's no different in the philosophical world.

Men have a clear (to varying degrees) conception of what is conventional and what strange, and they want to conventionalise everything they encounter because the prefer the former over the latter. The wisdom seeker's desire to unify all divisions is a more extreme version of the aforesaid.

My thinking on the issue is pretty much aligned with the Chris Hedges video that Dan posted a couple of days ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na_jAtxpmiI. Although it doesn't cover the whole issue, it does highlight some of the most pertinent factors.

No, he only agrees with Bannon et alii to the extent that their views coincide with his own. He is clearly not at odds with the corrupt liberal politicians, since he doesn't mention their many and grievous ills.

I'm not trying to promote Hedges, necessarily, but I find many of his political observations to be quite astute. He was bitterly disappointed that Sanders did not accept Jill Stein's offer for him to run on the same ticket with her with Sanders as number one on that ticket. He has always spoken against the corrupt liberal elite.

That's certainly a more balanced perspective. However, he still doesn't mention anything about liberal insanity per se, i.e., SJWs, feminists, unlimited government spending etc. For him, everything seems to boil down to evils of capitalism and the big corporations, whereas the reality is that jobs outsourcing and the ability to print money infinitely allows a massive public sector to exist and therefore support the underclass.

Like his alt right counterpart, Hedges likes to reminisce about an age when the elite of his preferred political box stuck to their principles. Yet, it isn't the integrity of those elites that has disappeared, but the affordability of the standard of living that people in the west have gotten used to. That affordability can be maintained *only* via credit expansion on the backs of "others". When there are no more "others" to carry the servicing burdens of the debt- and oil-fuelled economy, said standard of living will start to fall (as it already has). Greedy people create greedy corporations and bankers. Either be satisfied with less for longer, or be satisfied with more for the moment. One can't serve two masters.

Pam Seeback wrote:
All things are possible, none of them are absolute.

Jupifif; They are absolute precisely because they are possible.

You seem to be leaving out the “I” or interpreter in this equation, the sense of self that turns things into a relational narrative, a value-applied point of view.

Jupiviv: Anything that can be logically conceived holds the key to one's very existence.

“Key” in the context it is being used here is not clear. Can you give me more meat?

Quote:
Pam: But the suffering one experiences because ofthe resulting attachment can be eased, almost to non-existence (very subtle) if one desires.

Jupiviv: The desire to get rid of attachments is itself an attachment.

Agree. Desire is the fuel of attachment, the arrival of the I.

.
Jupiviv: Non-attachment can't be desired or attained,

Not so. One is not born aware of attachment and non-attachment, ergo at some point non-attachment must be desired if one no longer desires to be attached.

Jupiviv: yet it must guide one's every action.

If non-attachment is guiding one's every action, is one not desiring to be non-attached? The only time I can see where desire is absent is when one is stating a fact such as “I see a tree.” Imagine such a conversation though – bottom line, what’s the point?

Jupiviv: The sage, on the other hand, wants to be rid of nothing whatsoever.

In the wanting not to be rid of something, is the sage not not attached to his wanting not to be rid of? In pointing this out, I am also making the point that this is a good example of a subjective definition presented as an absolute statement. This is your definition of a sage, is it not? The Buddha taught/preached that the cause of suffering could be found and removed (got rid of). Perhaps you don’t view the Buddha as a sage. David must, as he defines himself as both.

It would seem that making absolute statements are unavoidable. It would be very cumbersome to begin every sentence with “I think” or “perhaps” or “in my opinion.” But making them with the knowledge that they are not absolute is not the same thing as declaring/defining them as absolute. Where it gets tricky is communicating on boards such as these where precision/truth is valued.

Pam Seeback wrote:One is not born aware of attachment and non-attachment, ergo at some point non-attachment must be desired if one no longer desires to be attached.

One does not really desire non-attachment, other than in the sense wherein one recognises non-attachment as the same thing as absence of ignorance (and therefore the dynamics of ego), which is what one is striving for if one's goal is enlightenment. I actually think 'non-attachment' is a dodgy thing to focus on as it can be mistaken for mere detachment and that in turn for spiritual progress or the aforementioned absence of ignorance. It depends on how far down the road of understanding one has trundled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQHq9bMjj4

Does one at some point desire wisdom, enlightenment? Maybe, maybe not, in the sense that what one actually primarily desires might simply be the riddance of suffering and one recognises wisdom, at least theoretically, as the means to that end. But must one desire something in the first instance? Yes, of course. Wisdom is necessarily and quintessentially an enterprise of the ego. This is necessarily so.

I'll admit that your actions in this thread has had a similar effect on me that Kevin's recent actions have had on you. It's the circle of life!

________

If Kevin wants to retire from his high perch of Enlightenment personified, I say let him! If the Kevin of old, of the PftH days, has truly died, may he rest in peace! Besides, he has done enough, indeed a great deal, to help ensure the survival of wisdom, inasmuch as that can be done. As have David and Dan. One can only reiterate one's take on spiritual wisdom so much. If and when the sages of old have more to say, more to add, that is wonderful and most welcomed. If not, then let us be grateful for what we have received and do our best to carry on the torch.

Pam Seeback wrote:Are you suggesting the absolute is the same concept as the causality, therefore, interdependence of things is caused by the absolute?

The absolute *is* the interdependence of things. It doesn't cause anything in the literal sense of that word.

I can see that the interdependence of things (the absolute) is not caused, that 'it' is. In this vision, the absolute and the causality are interchangeable terms. I can also see there is desire or will within the absolute/causality 'to make appear' or 'to do' that can be called 'causation' or 'causing.' And that the more conscious one is of this inherent will or desire to cause things or actions, the more focused will be the desire to cause the right or true thing or action. Of course, the question of what is the right or true thing or action arises. As I see it, the right or true thing or action is whatever is caused without the 'shadow' thought 'self' getting in the way, aka the ego.

I'll admit that your actions in this thread has had a similar effect on me that Kevin's recent actions have had on you. It's the circle of life!

________

If Kevin wants to retire from his high perch of Enlightenment personified, I say let him! If the Kevin of old, of the PftH days, has truly died, may he rest in peace! Besides, he has done enough, indeed a great deal, to help ensure the survival of wisdom, inasmuch as that can be done. As have David and Dan. One can only reiterate one's take on spiritual wisdom so much. If and when the sages of old have more to say, more to add, that is wonderful and most welcomed. If not, then let us be grateful for what we have received and do our best to carry on the torch.

No torch has been passed on. In fact I think this place has suffered from that belief. While the bureaucratic and necessary efforts to keep spammers at bay is acknowledged and appreciated by me (which was the entire purpose of appointing moderators) the forum has been a veritable wasteland in the absence of QSR. That is our fault.

Pam Seeback wrote:I can see that the interdependence of things (the absolute) is not caused, that 'it' is. In this vision, the absolute and the causality are interchangeable terms. I can also see there is desire or will within the absolute/causality 'to make appear' or 'to do' that can be called 'causation' or 'causing.'

Very interesting. I've been reading "the Essential teachings of Zen master Hakuin" and this koan mentioned in one of Hakuin's talks pertains to the argument I made before. Would you agree with the interpretation of it that Hakuin provides?

The koan:

Priest Ch'ien-feng addressed his assembly:

"This Dharma-body has three kinds of sickness and two kinds of light. Can any of you clarify that?"

In the fourth chapter of a collection of Zen records titled Ch'an-yu is a Dharma talk [fusetsu] the Ming priest Yung-chiao gave to his assembly during the December practice session:

Ch'ien-feng says that the Dharma-body has three kinds of sickness and two kinds of light; he also says that there is an opening through which to pass beyond these obstructions. Now, even if I have to lose my eyebrows for doing it, I'm going to explain the true meaning of Ch'ien-feng's words to you.

As a rule, mountains, streams, the great earth, light and darkness, form and emptiness, and all the other myriad phenomena obstruct your vision and are, as such, impediments to the Dharma body. That is the first of the sicknesses Ch'ien-feng refers to.

When you go on to realize the emptiness of all things and begin dimly to discern the true principle of the Dharrna-body, but are unable to leave your attachment to the Dharma behind - that is the second sickness.

When you are able to bore through and attain the Dharma body, but you realize upon investigating it anew that there is no way to grasp hold of it, no way to postulate it or to indicate it to others, attachment to the Dharrna still remains. That is the third sickness.

The first sickness is a kind of light that doesn't penetrate freely. The second and third sicknesses are likewise a kind of light; it doesn't penetrate with unobstructed freedom either.

When a student has bored his way through the opening mentioned, he is beyond these obstructions and is able to see clearly the three sicknesses and two lights, with no need for even the slightest bit of further effort.

Dan Rowden wrote:No torch has been passed on. In fact I think this place has suffered from that belief. While the bureaucratic and necessary efforts to keep spammers at bay is acknowledged and appreciated by me (which was the entire purpose of appointing moderators) the forum has been a veritable wasteland in the absence of QSR. That is our fault.

Don't flatter or pain your self with that responsibility, Dan. It was often a "wasteland" in the past with you in charge as well, just busier simply because the forum was younger and internet was simpler, it's how these things go! The "waste", as you call it, has been in my view always a main feature of the forum as long as I can remember. And it's not just my opinion since you were saying it yourself often back then, when complaining about the amount of utter trash being posted and the lack of focus etc.

And since you've been back so far posting conspiracy filled, political gossip all put front center at the forum, the question is if anyone should take your idea of quality serious at the moment. Any call for quality however, is always welcome.

Russell Parr wrote:If Kevin wants to retire from his high perch of Enlightenment personified, I say let him! If the Kevin of old, of the PftH days, has truly died, may he rest in peace! Besides, he has done enough, indeed a great deal, to help ensure the survival of wisdom, inasmuch as that can be done. As have David and Dan. One can only reiterate one's take on spiritual wisdom so much. If and when the sages of old have more to say, more to add, that is wonderful and most welcomed. If not, then let us be grateful for what we have received and do our best to carry on the torch.

No torch has been passed on. In fact I think this place has suffered from that belief. While the bureaucratic and necessary efforts to keep spammers at bay is acknowledged and appreciated by me (which was the entire purpose of appointing moderators) the forum has been a veritable wasteland in the absence of QSR. That is our fault.

There will be no baton-passing of Genius Forum.

I wasn't talking about Genius Forum. I was referring to the wisdom itself.

I know full and well that this place isn't worth a squat without you three. It is your baby after all. I do not plan nor desire to "take over" this place in any way. My role around here is and has always been to try and keep the clutter minimized and point others in the right direction, either by echoing what I've learned and/or referencing the various materials found under this domain and the youtube channel.

Honestly, to me, as far as absorbing wisdom goes, this forum ranks the lowest out of all the subsites. Most of the time, the bulk of the conversations are of lower quality. Besides, it takes a very rare person who is genuinely earnest about learning directly from others to gain much around here. Like encode_decode, perhaps. Most people can't set their egos aside while participating in order to get the message. It is only during solitary reflection that most people are able to grasp the truths being conveyed.

At this point I see myself moreso an apostle rather than an outspoken leader. I do desire to be more proactive in the future, but now is not the time. Who knows, I may never get to that point. In the meantime I will continue as I have, in striving to improve my mental and otherwise daily habits in ways that reflect wisdom. But I can promise that I'll keep the work of QRS alive. I've got backups of nearly everything except the videos so that if and when you old farts decease, and Kelly's mirrors aren't working, I'll keep the material live online.